To think Eurovision is no longer about the talent

[misszebra]

Following from a discussion seen in lots of threads. I was so disappointed at the clear political motive behind the jury and popularity votes this year. Switzerland did fantastic, but IMO the image of Switzerland as the 'neutral' country might have been behind a lot of the jury votes at least, although I am glad he won over some others.
Germany were the best by miles I felt, Isaak has such fantastic raw talent and didn't need the circus around him to prove it.

Does anyone else think a lot of the votes were due to politics?

Its a shame to see clear talent pushed under the rug...

Ah, I've just re-read the post I quoted and I think I misunderstood it: that it was actually saying they both try very hard indeed, even though they don't actually need to try to have their place in the Final secured!

Yes they do have to try fgs. Honestly wtaf is wrong with people, I'm a conspiracy theory lover but not about frigging eurovision haha.

Is it that unbelievable that people liked Switzerland? I liked it somewhat, he had a good voice. Olly sounded like a dying puppy.

France man also had a good voice.

I really liked Croatia and thought they performed fantastically well - would never have voted for Olly’s dirty toilet even if I could. Who came up with that idea and thought it would be visually appealing???

So I was disappointed that the juries all voted for Switzerland and that was why Nemo won. Croatia won the popular vote! Then he sang the song again without the balancing circle thing (which was imo fussy and unneccessary, I kept thinking he would fall off) and that changed my mind. Its a good song, he has a very good voice and is a good performer. He deserved to win.

I didn’t watch, for various reasons I won’t go into, but I did watch two programs about Abba that were shown. They commented that for them, Eurovision was the best chance of breaking out of Sweden and into a wider audience. I think, given the prominence of UK bands, from the sixties onwards, the same incentive has never been similarly important to the UK.

I also think Terry Wogan fed into turning it into a joke for the UK, which probably meant serious bands who might have used it as a way to get publicity would be less likely to consider it.

I do feel it is now so much about image and recently “diversity” that it has become detrimental to the quality, but that’s happening in many different areas of the arts.

The politics were always there, but usually a properly catchy song would win, in spite of it. I would be interested to know, way back in the 70s, whether Abba got radio play in the UK before the competition, or whether they won it with a single performance. I seem to remember Bucks Fizz being widely played on the radio before Eurovision - it was already familiar before the show. Was that just in the UK because it was our entry, or did Eurovision songs sometimes break out in the lead up to the competition, if they were sufficiently outstanding?

It's always been political. They changed the voting to try to make it a bit more balanced. Countries would just vote for each others friends basically

It's not indeed.
France and Latvia, two wonderful voices, didn't get very far.
Loved Estonia, they just had good fun and didn't take anything too seriously.
And why people need to vote and waste their money if the jury still decides different?

Latvia qualified against all expectations and France finished 4th, so that's a nonsense.

People may have missed it, but it was commented on by the presenters that the most tickets sold to the actual performances were to people from the UK. There were more British people in the arena than Swedes apparently. So contrary to what people are saying on SM, it is still popular in the UK.

I don't know why we keep entering the (football) world cup! We haven't won in nearly 60 years. It's boring and our team are rubbish. What a waste of time. I mean I'm no fan, I only watch the odd world cup match, but hey I am perfectly qualified to give my opinion 😂

When all you know about Eurovision comes from tuning in once a year to the final. You don't really know anything about it. If you feel it's crap and should end, stop watching! Simple.

The jury gave Switzerland all those votes because Nemo scored highly in every aspect that the judges base their points on. He may have had less public votes than Croatia (which I also loved) but he still got a significant number so the public liked it too. Therefore, he was a worthy winner.

I wasn't happy about last years result. I felt Finland were robbed. But that's how it goes. It's my choice to continue watching or not, same for everyone.

First reply answered it!! It's entirely political.

France and Latvia, two wonderful voices, didn't get very far.

France got quite far. I'm glad I'm not the only person who liked Latvia as I don't know anyone else in real life who did.

I'd say France got quite far also because it was one of the big countries who qualified automatically (which doesn't seem very fair but oh well).
Still, there was too much politics, hidden and other, for this song contest to be called exactly that and nothing more.
This is what I didn't like at all.

where have you been OP? I remember people saying this is in the early 90s! It's political and always has been. I's common knowledge. They don't even hide it.

You don't have to like every song but did you not think that the French singer was talented?
Did you think there were many better than him?

I didn't like the French song as it's not my thing. But I thought he was very talented. His voice was amazing. I wasn't surprised he got a lot of points.

Exactly - it has never been about talent.
Even if there was a time when the songs/performers mattered they had to appeal to such a wide spectrum that the winning songs have always been vacuous tripe.

it's always been political. it's a soft power for change and acceptance.

It's always pushed for an European white christain narrative.

The automatic qualifiers historically haven't done very well. Indeed there was a school of thought that the reason for this was they aren't in the semi finals so they only get one shot to perform and aren't as familiar as the qualifiers. That's why they now do a full performance in the semi finals even though they don't need to qualify. The reason France got far this year was that they had a strong singer and a song/performance that had high appeal. The staging wasn't elaborate, but the acapella from far away trick was impressive and memorable.

The pre-qualifying for France, as one of the Big 5, only got them to the final - that had no bearing whatsoever on their ending up right near the top, having got there.

Does anyone know the criteria for an automatic place in the final?!

That sounds rather a lazy assertion to me, to write off EVERY winning song as 'vacuous tripe'.

I agree that there have been quite a few winners that I personally haven't rated at all, but a good number of the winners have gone on to be all-time classics.

Also, don't forget that the viewer base spans a huge amount of cultures and tastes. Every person and country who participates votes based on what they like - as they have every right to do - they don't vote based purely on what they reckon the average Brit might like.

You have to be one of the 'Big 5' that pays the highest participation fees - France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.

I gather that each of the Big 5's fees amounts to between £500K and £1m, which doesn't really sound like that much of a stretch for most of the bigger and/or western countries that are participating - but I don't know if there is still capacity for others to pay the higher price and pre-qualify as well, or if the door has now been closed to new would-be 'members'.

Exactly how can anyone call Jonny Logan vacuous tripe!

Well that is a little unfair.
Although if we didn’t get that advantage the UK Would never get in the final 😂😂

The winning country also gets an automatic spot in the following year. So there are 6 automatic qualifiers.